Creating Stories, Creating Worlds (Genesis 1-2, Part 1)

Monday, January 3, 2022


Works cited:

Episode notes (not an exact transcript but very close):

Why do creation stories matter?

“Creation stories reflect the assumptions about how the divine and the mortal, the mental and the physical, humans and other human, male and female, humans, plants, and animals, land, waters, and stars, are related to each other. Creation stories reflect the worldview of the culture and mandate that worldview to its ongoing heirs.” Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. All items in quotation should be assumed to be quotes from this work unless otherwise explicitly stated.

What are the prominent theological/cosmological theories of creation in broader Christianity?

“Three classical creation stories have particularly shaped the Christian world. Its creation story is the one found in the first chapters of Genesis.”

Babylonian Narrative: 

“Behind this Hebrew creation story lies a more ancient one, the Enuma Elish, or Babylonian creation story,”

“The Babylonian creation story was itself rooted in earlier stories from the Sumerian world. These stories began with a primal Mother who is the origin of both the cosmos and the gods. The deities emerge in successive generations, representing the successive stages of the generations of the cosmos. First there emerges from her body the primal parents, Heaven and Earth; then the primal cosmic forces: water, air, and vegetation; and then the anthropomorphic (or human-like) gods and goddesses who represent the ruling class.”

In this story, the primal Mother goddess is Tiamat. In a series of conflict between generations and consorts, Tiamat battles against the hero Marduk. He kills Tiamat and splits her body in half, raising one half upward as the sky, and “fashions the stars and planetary abodes of the heavens in the underside of her body.” and the other half on the earth. Human bodies are made by mixing the blood of Tiamat’s executed lover with clay. Pretty gruesome, but honestly lots of creation stories are. The one in Genesis is one of the more tame methods of creation.

Hebrew (Genesis) Narrative:

The story of Tiamat and Marduk was composed more than four centuries prior to the Hebrew creation story and was repeated as a part of a yearly celebration, “The priestly authors of the Hebrew creation stories were well aware of this Babylonian story, and composed their own story both to reflect their own system and selectively appropriate and correct the earlier Babylonian story.”

“The Hebrew creation story has both continuities with and important differences from the Babylonian story. In the Hebrew story the Creator coexists with the primal “stuff” of the cosmos and is in serene control of the process. Strife between Creator and the primal Mother has been eliminated. Instead the Mother has already been reduced to formless but also malleable “stuff” that responds instantly to the Creator’s command.

The Hebrew authors describe the shaping of the cosmos as proceeding majestically through six days. The Creator first creates light, separating it from darkness. On the second day, he, like Marduk, creates the vault of the sky. On the third day, the dry land emerges from the lower waters and seed-bearing plants appear. On the fourth day the Creator shapes the stars, the sun, and the moon to govern night and day. On the fifth day, he creates the fish and birds, and on the sixth day he creates the land animals, cattle, reptiles, and wild animals, followed by humans. Humans are distinguished from animals by being made “in the image of God.” They are given rulership over all the earth.”

Plato’s Narrative:

“The third story is Plato’s Timaeus. Although Christians took the Hebrew story as theologically normative, for 1500 years they read it with the cosmology of Plato in the back of their minds.”

“Plato starts by dividing reality into two realms - the invisible and eternal realm of thought and the visible realm of corporeality. The invisible realm is primal and original. In between these two realms was the Creator or Demiurgos, the cosmic artisan. Like the work of Babylonian Marduk and the Hebrew Creator, the Demiurgos creates by “making.” The world is the work of an artisan, who shapes from dead stuff, not from the reproductive process of begetting and gestating. Having been “made” rather than “begotten” denotes the cosmos to the status of a possessed object.

The Demiurgos shapes space into primal elements of fire, air, water, and earth, and assigns each following creation to the realms of these elements. The Demiurgos creates the soul of the world and the souls of humans. Each of these souls receive a celestial education in the eternal, primal realm of thought. The creation of human bodies is “too low a task for the Demiurgos and is assigned to the planetary gods.”

Here’s where it gets fascinating and frustrating for us. “Once the souls have received their celestial infusion of truth, they are incarnated into male bodies. Their task is to control the chaotic sensations that arise from the body. If the souls succeed in this task, they will shed the body and return at death to the celestial realm. But if one fails to attain this control over the body and its sensations, the soul will be reincarnated into a woman. If in that state the soul doesn't desist from evil, he will be reincarnated as a “brute.” This round of incarnation will continue until the soul masters the body and returns to his “first and better state” that is, as a (ruling class) male human.”

This is a very simplistic retelling of Timaeus based on Ruether’s work, so please know that this is probably the shortest retelling ever and does not include all the details.

This is a very brief summary of Ruether’s work, but we share it to demonstrate that stories - even biblical stories, even the stories we think we know - are not stagnant and impermeable. They are influenced by the stories before and around them. Stories meet one another, rub up against one another, and color each other. 

Like paints on a palette, even just the smallest brush of two colors against one another creates a new color. So the OT version in the chapters we’re reading this week are not necessarily “pure” in the sense that the creation story has a singular source. And even if it were true, our understanding, interpretation, and re-telling of this story are certainly not pure. They are influenced by our experiences, by our personal understandings, by other stories.

Science’s creation narratives:

What are other prominent creation theories of today? There are other creation stories. There are some we know very well, like science’s story about how the world was created.

Big Bang Theory: All the elements of the universe were floating around unused until one day, BANG, they started coming together to create miniscule forms of life and growing and evolving into what we now know as the planet.

Evolution: These banging elements continue to shift and change forms, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small, and create the lifeforms we see as plants, fungi, animals, etc. Evolution happens gradually over time. Birds & reptiles came from dinosaurs, humans from apes, Sciency stuff like that.

These stories are not necessarily the only stories of creation - far from it. But I wanted to nod to each of them so we can understand that there is not just one or two stories that are at odds with one another, but many tellings of how the earth and her beloveds came to be.

How these creation narratives have shaped the Genesis narrative and Christian interpretations:

Creation stories shape our understanding of the world and our place in it. Knowing this, we’d like to examine how each of these narratives have uniquely shaped the creation story and its interpretations we know today.

“Western Christianity accepted the Genesis 1 account as its official “revealed” story of creation. But it read this account through the eyes of Greek science and it also made its own synthesis of ancient Near Eastern, Hebrew, Greek, and Christian ideas. The result was a view that contained ideas not strictly present in the Hebraic account.”

This is significant for a few reasons. First, Ruether points out again all the ways these different stories mix on the same palette to color the creation narrative we have. Mormonism also adds its own contributions, with its expansion on the premortal existence. She explicitly states that the primary creation narrative is not “purely revelation, but a synthesis of many different stories.

Second, she points out that the text of Genesis 1 and the story we tell about that text are two different things.

Insights and Critiques of The Babylonian Creation story:

Most of my study of myth and story is in Norse and Celtic traditions, and something I’ve noticed is the way that myths and stories are not just fantastical imaginations of the world, but also keep track of historical events that are only barely thinly veiled. In the Babylonian story of Tiamat and Marduk, we see a cultural shift happening within the myth. Tiamat, with her regenerative creative power (birthing creation into being) is matriarchal, matrifocal. If we imagine Tiamat as representative of a matriarchal societal structure and the hero Marduk as a militaristic and patriarchal structure, we see a cultural annihilation of a way of life, a conquering of mythic proportions.

Matrifocal and matrilineal societies are understood to honor equality and community health more than patriarchal ones. In the myth of Tiamat and Marduk, we see the shift from a shared creative force of male and female combined to one where the creative powers of the cosmos are stripped from a shared power between Tiamat and her lover and is sequestered solely in the realm of the male hero Marduk. 

“Marduk extinguishes the life from Tiamat’s body, reducing it to dead stuff from which he then fashions the cosmos. From the dead body of her lover, he takes the blood to make the humans. It marks the transition from a reproductive forming of the cosmos to an artisanal one. Where life begotten and gestated has its own autonomous principles of life, dead matter is fashioned into artifacts.’

With the story of Tiamat and Marduk, we see a striking connection between the domination of female bodies and the devaluation of life. We also see in this story a connection of the feminine with Earth, because of the regenerative properties of both.

Insights and Critiques of The Hebrew creation story:

“There is no doubt that this account is anthropocentric (human centric). Although created last, the human is the crown of creation and given sovereignty over it. However, an exploitative or destructive rule over earth is certainly not intended. Humans are not given ownership or possession over the earth, which ultimately remains “the Lord’s.” Their role is one of care of the earth as a royal steward, not an owner who can do with it what he wills. This obviously means that humans are to take good care of earth, not to exploit or destroy it, which would make them bad stewards.”

In general, I really like this narrative and approach of stewardship over ownership, and it makes my ecofeminist heart happy to hear that this reading is inherent in the text.

Insights and Critiques of the Greek creation story (Plato’s Timaeus)

Plato splits reality between mind and body. “Mind or consciousness is primal, eternal, and good. Body is secondary, derivative, and the source of evil in the form of physical sensations to be mastered by the mind. Mind is immortal and godlike, and humans share in the nature of the divine. The soul, mind, or consciousness is alien to earth and body. Its true home is the pure and eternal world of the stars, while incarnation in a body is a separatory “testing place” or purgatory.”

This hierarchy of mind over body is reproduced in the hierarchy of male over female, humans over animals. “The earth itself is seen as the lowest level of a cosmic hierarchy of planetary spheres that mount above it. Like the body, a “prisonhouse” of the soul, earth is the collective prison of incarnated souls, which must work their way out of this fallen state to return to their “true home” in the starry heavens. Earth and body, once dominated and made inferior, are not fled from altogether in the quest of the male mind to free itself from the “contamination” of mortality and to secure immortal life.”

If you are noticing striking similarities between some of what Plato outlines and the teachings of the LDS church, you are not alone. The idea that our theology was born from pure revelation and is untainted from the “ways of the world,” does not hold up when we look at the development of stories, specifically cosmologies and theologies. 

Commentary on the influences on the Genesis creation narrative:

For me, I feel it is important to note that the story we tell about the creation story is different than the story itself. Often in the church, in our talks and classes, we share ideas and teachings about this story without really knowing where they come from, and then put the label of “truth” or revelation on them. 

This isn’t to say that we don’t think that the creation narrative in Genesis isn’t “true,” but like we’ve talked about before, there is a difference between capital T, actual factual, irrefutable truth, and lower-case t truth, an idea that is true based on strongly-held values and beliefs. Both are true, but the little t truths are more malleable and changeable. I can believe that the creation narrative is little T true because I value the storytelling nature of human beings. But it is also not the only creation story I believe is true. 

I also appreciate knowing the shaping influences of this story because it helps me better understand the aspects of what I think, or better “thought,” the genesis story of creation is. I get to decide, do I like that the precursor to the genesis narrative was built on a story of the slaughter of a female deity? For me, no, I do not. I get to ask questions like, why is the Mother, the birthing begotting presence absent and instead a decidedly male artisan is centered instead? I get to read the ideas set forth by Plato and think, wow, he has some super deeply engrained patriarchal values in his heart. I get to say, it hurts my soul to believe that women are essentially failed men, and that their only hope in becoming complete or whole is to die and try again, just next time with male reproductive organs. 

I get to look at how these ideas have shaped the story I am told about who I am, who the world is, and what my purpose is here and, with the pieces in front of me say, what parts of my experience as a Mormon woman were shaped not by prophets, but by Plato? What parts of my own experience have a strong correlation to the slaughter of Tiamat? And here too, I ask, borrowing from Carol-Lynn Pearson’s poem, how did it come to be that I live in a Motherless house? Can I possibly track her leaving by following the threads of myths through time?

Evidence of the Multiple Influences of Interpretation in the CFM manual:

Knowing these questions are sitting at the surface of my experience of the creation story, its really difficult for me to engage with the CFM’s shaping of the creation story. In the opening paragraph, 

“One thing the Creation story teaches us is that God can make something magnificent out of something unorganized. That’s helpful to remember when life seems chaotic. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are Creators, and Their creative work with us is not finished. They can make light shine in dark moments in our lives. They can form solid ground in the midst of life’s stormy seas. They can command the elements, and if we obey Their word like the elements did, They can transform us into the beautiful creations we were meant to be. That’s part of what it means to be created in God’s image, after His likeness. We have the potential to become like Him: exalted, glorified, celestial beings.”

So much of what we’ve discussed so far shows up in this one paragraph. The Hebrew narrative of a male artesanal God is immediately apparent. The earth is either dead “stuff” with which to create, or the earth obeys commands as a lesser being. The acceptable image of God is male, for it is in His likeness we are made. We have the potential to become like Him, male, exalted, glorified, celestial. The influence of Plato’s theories of the hierarchy of male over female, mind over matter, spirit over body, heaven and stars over earth, celestial over terrestrial show up strongly here. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Commentary on the Availability of Alternative Creation Narratives

For me (Channing), once I understood that the narrative of the “eternal truth” of creation of the earth and bodies was actually a little t truth and not a capital t one, everything changed for me. Once I realized that the origin of male-as-creator-god was not the only narrative available to me, that there were other stories and other traditions that survived a platonic and/or patriarchal grip, everything changed for me.

Once I encountered other stories, like the story of the celtic Callieach, whose living, breathing, still-awake body makes up the earth and the waters upon it, everything changed for me. Or the story of the Norse-Germanic Yggdrasil, the world tree, which holds the universe together and is nurtured by three women who water its roots every day from the well of wisdom. Or the story of the Greek Gaia, who later shifted shape and name to Demeter and Persephone, who bear all that is green and good AND nurture the necessary death and decay of the world. Or the story of Skywoman from the land of Turtle Island, or what we now know as North America, who fell from the sky and was carried by Geese to Turtles back on the endless sea, who, thanks to the brave sacrifice of Muskrat, with a tiny handful of dirt from the ocean floor created the land and the Sweetgrass who grows upon it.

The creation narrative in genesis is a little t truth. It has shreds of goodness in it, but it is far from the only creation narrative available and even further from being the most helpful or healthy one. Simply because it is the most popular and the most prevalent creation narrative does not mean it is the most correct, most true, and most pure narrative there is. It is one option.

What can we celebrate about the Genesis creation narrative?

We find the Genesis narrative both beautiful and frustrating. It is frustrating for me because of the absence of the Mother creative regenerative birthing begotting force. For me, that absence is acutely felt and is in opposition to my values and understanding of the earth. However, I have a lot of love for the genesis story as well, for two reasons.

Creative power of language:

The Genesis narrative has one of the most compelling examples for me of the creative power of language. We have a whole entire episode devoted to this topic, The Language of Grace and Joy, from 2021, that goes super deeply into this topic, so I won’t be discussing it here for the sake of time. But I highly encourage that paired listening, at least of the first half of that episode, with the study of genesis 1.

An inherent ethic of stewardship:

As mentioned earlier, RRR writes, “Humans are not given ownership or possession over the earth, which ultimately remains “the Lord’s.” Their role is one of care of the earth as a royal steward, not an owner who can do with it what he wills. This obviously means that humans are to take good care of earth, not to exploit or destroy it, which would make them bad stewards.”

She also explains that the word for human, Adam, is from the Hebrew word adamah, meaning earth, and that this etymological relationship “assumes a deep kinship of humans and earth.”

In an LDS context, the church website has a gospel topics essay titled “Environmental Stewardship and Conservation” which mirrors many of the ethics of conservation inherent in the creation narrative in genesis as well as throughout scripture. The first paragraph of this essay pulls text from this week’s assigned chapters and reads:

“This beautiful earth and all things on it are the creations of God (see Genesis 1:1; Moses 2:1). As beneficiaries of this divine creation, we should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations. The earth and all things on it are part of God’s plan for the redemption of His children and should be used responsibly to sustain the human family (see Moses 1:39; Abraham 3:24–25). However, all are stewards—not owners—over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations. All humankind should gratefully use what God has given, avoid wasting life and resources, and use the bounty of the earth to care for the poor and the needy.”

The essay outlines questions such as, “Why does God care about the earth? What is the role of the earth in the plan of salvation? What does it mean to be a steward of the earth and its resources? If the earth will be changed at the second coming of Jesus, why does it matter if we care for the earth and conserve?”

Whether or not the church itself is a good steward of the earth or if all parts of its theology are earth healing and affirming is another conversation for another time, but on the whole, the foundation of the creation narrative in genesis is one which values right relationship and an ethic of caretaking and stewardship.

Challenges and Limitations of Stewardship Ethic:

A question that the CFM manual asks is “One way to approach the Creation story is to invite your family to find how many times in Genesis 1 or Moses 2 God calls the things that he made “good.” What does this suggest about how we should treat God’s creations—including ourselves?”

The GT essay answers: “God has made us accountable for the care and preservation of the earth and the wise use of its resources. As stewards, we avoid complacency and excessive consumption, using only what is necessary. We make our homes, neighborhoods, and cities beautiful. We preserve resources and protect for future generations the spiritual and temporal blessings of nature.”

The suggestions the essay makes for conservation efforts mostly focus on the individual, rather than addressing systemic change, but they are a good start for those wanting to improve their ecological impact.

But it is not a comprehensive list. The suggestions encourage individuals to conserve energy and resources, recycle, start a community garden, and beautify homes, workplaces, and worship spaces. There is some broad advice to become informed and engaged with local conservation groups and civically active. But it stops short of addressing what can be done on a broader scale.

One of the dangers of the individualist approach is that the church is a global church. It is fine and well for citizens in suburban Utah to focus on signing up for recycling service, but what good is conserving resources if you do not have access to clean water? Or live in a food desert? Or do not have means or resources to beautify living, working, and worship spaces? Conservation needs a local focus, but that local focus cannot be globally applied.

Conservation also means an examination of wealth and privilege. Conservation efforts of the wealthy are necessarily different from conservation efforts of the poor and the marginalized. What seems accessible and important for a white woman in the suburbs will likely not be what is most needful and impactful for indigenous women.

Conservation usually focuses on what we can do, but there is also a necessary focus on what actions we can choose NOT to do.

I have a tiny little Channing rant about this. I live in Syracuse, Utah, which is experiencing a high volume of development because of increased housing needs - something that most of the state is dealing with. But before this became the problem that it is today, much of Syracuse was either empty field or farmland.

For humans, we usually look at an empty field and see an empty field. But for other living creatures, an empty field is an oasis. It is a source of food, shelter, and water. Empty fields are not empty - they house animals, plants, insects, reptiles, and rodents, who all contribute to the biodiversity and health of the ecosphere they live in.

Knowing this, it was especially heartbreaking for me to hear that a new LDS temple was to be built on farmland just one major street over from where I live. There was, and is, a big part of me that wants to put a huge question mark over the conservation claims of the church when it develops “empty” land.

Where there is a temple, there is landscaping, and concrete, and pavement, and pest control, and noise and light pollution. There is control of water and elimination and sanitation of other resources. So though humans - and not all humans, only the LDS ones -  gain a pretty building, all the other beings that rely on that land lose their homes and food.

This example is one that I think illustrates one of the biggest limitations of the genesis narrative of stewardship and conservations. Even with all the good things that an ethic of conservation and stewardship can bring to our relationship with the earth, this narrative is still limited. 

Alternatives to an ethic of stewardship:

An ethic of stewardship still retains an anthropocentric view of the earth and creation. Anthropocentrism is defined as “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence.” Stewardship places the focus on the actions and purpose of humans.

Because a human-centered view of the world is most dominant in western society, it can be difficult to imagine alternative world views. But if we contrast anthropocentrism with other world views, a new way of seeing and being in the world emerges.

Ecocentrism is one such world view. It is defined as “A philosophy or policy which places value and importance on the entire environment and all life in it, not just the parts that are useful to humans.” Ecocentrism is not new. It has counterparts in ancient spirituality in a philosophy known as animism, which occurs in many indigenous cultures worldwide.

Stewardship becomes anthropocentric when we prioritize the survival, purpose, and enjoyment of humans over those of the other beings in the ecosystems we are a part of. In the framework of the Genesis creation narrative, humans are to be good stewards, but they are stewards over the “stuff” of the earth - the waters, the plants and land and animals upon it. 

Contrast this with an ecocentric or animist view, where humans live alongside the earth in a interdependent relationship of reciprocity, of equal purpose and importance, equal give and take, equal honor of life and death.In an ecocentric or animist worldview, plants, animals, rocks, dirt, mountains, lakes, rivers, oceans, glaciers, beetles, lizards, clouds, and all their counterparts have autonomy, purpose, rights, and worth. These other-than-human beings are people.

Some First Nations people recognize other beings as nations. One does not see a sparrow, a singular flying object enlivened by breath and flight. One meets a member of the Sparrow nation or tribe - sparrow with a capital S. Here in my Utah homeland I live alongside the Mulberry nation, the Juniper nation, the Snake Nation, the Salt and Sulphur nations. 

Interestingly enough, in a conversation that alludes to language as a creative force, it is interesting to notice the way the English language operates in establishing personhood to some and object-hood to others. 

“Imagine seeing your grandmother standing at the stove in her apron and then saying of her, “Look, it is making soup. It has gray hair.” We might snicker at such a mistake, but we also recoil from it. In English, we never refer to a member of our family, or indeed to any person, as it. That would be a profound act of disrespect. It robs a person of selfhood and kinship, reducing a person to a mere thing. So it is that in Potawatomi and most other Indigenous languages, we use the same words to address the living world as we use for our family. Because they are our family.

Our toddlers speak of plants and animals as if they were people, extending to them Self and intention and compassion, until we teach them not to. When we tell them that the tree is not a who but an it, we make that maple an object, we put a barrier between us, absolving ourselves of moral responsibility and opening the door to exploitation. Saying it makes a living land into “natural resources.” If a maple is an it, we can take up the chain saw. If a maple is a her, we think twice. The arrogance of English is that the only way to be animate, to be worthy of respect and moral concern, is to be a human.” Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass

In summary, an ethic of stewardship as outlined in Genesis 1 embraces and promotes an anthropocentric worldview, where humans retain personhood and dominion over other beings whose personhood has been entirely taken or reduced to stuff and objects and things. This is apparent in the use of language in Genesis 1. God saw that it was good.

Stories and language are not benign. They have creative power. They shape our world and tell us where we are and what our purpose is in it. We live in a world that prioritizes an anthropocentric story of creation, and we are beginning to see the consequences of the rhetoric of dominion. Species of plants, animals, and insects are dying into extinction every day. Rivers and lakes are drying and oceans are rising not only in water level with the melting of glaciers, but in toxic chemical and garbage waste produced by humans.

This speaks nothing of the consequences our domination has on other humans, which we will cover. 

Textual Evidence of Animist/Ecocentric worldview in Genesis

However, I feel there is some hope to be found if we read a little further into Genesis 2, verse 3-4. Those read “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.”

There might be some scholarly disagreement on the proper interpretation of the hebrew word of generations. Some translations interpret the world toledot  as account or record, but its interesting to see that other biblical records or accounts of generations use the same word toledot as specifically mentioning human families and lineages. An animist reading of Genesis 2:4 would imply that the generations of the first through 6th days of the creation are part of our family, our lineage, with rest as our birthright.

I find this interpretation not only beautiful, but in line with both what I understand of biology and healthy ecology, but also from the voices of the indigenous peoples of North America and my heavy personal research into the ancient, pre-christian spiritual traditions of peoples indigenous to Northern Europe.

How beautiful it is to me to think of myself not only as a child of God, a celestial and gloried being, but also a Child of the Day, a Child of Night. A Child of Darkness, and Child of Light. A Child of Heaven, of Dry Land, and Seas. A Child of Grass, of Herbs, and Fruit Trees, A Child of Signs, a Child of Seasons, A Child of the Moon and Stars. A Child of Creatures and Fowl that fly, a Child of Whales with their watery cry, A Child of Cattle, A Small Beast of Earth, A Child to which the World Beings gave birth.

In summary, we’ve covered some big topics in this episode on the narrative of the creation of the earth. We’ve talked about the Babylonian myth that pre-dates and influences the Hebrew creation narrative found in Genesis 1, as well as the influence of later Greek philosophical perspectives that shaped the way we view and tell the story of creation. We’ve talked about the harms and implications each of those individual stories have had on our collective lived experience, as well as the gifts we might celebrate about the creation story in Genesis. We’ve explored responsible stewardship and conservation, and its limitations. We’ve briefly dipped our toes into alternative worldviews which might foster healthier relationships with the world and one another through ecocentrism and animism, and even how these worldviews mesh well with some of the language of generations we encounter in the Genesis account.

Powered by Blogger.